Monday, November 14, 2016

The Clinton campaign was so overconfident they would win the election, they planned to launch fireworks over the Hudson River on election night. When they cancelled the fireworks the weekend before the election, a lot of people suspected their internal polling showed they were in trouble.

Then, after the election, the media naturally looked for incidents of Trump supporters beating up minorities despite the absence of any evidence such misconduct was remotely likely. The media ran with hoaxes because that's all they had--hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good radical left narrative?

Then, when the markets plunged in the hours after the election, leftist economist Paul Krugman--a Nobel Prize winner, mind you--wrote that "a terrible thing"--Trump's election--"has just happened” and added something that might haunt him the rest of his life: "If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.” The markets recovered in a few hours, then went soaring. So much for the Nobel Prize.

A good friend reported that last Wednesday, pre-schoolers at a major university child care center were crying in fear over the outcome of the election--my friend said their parents were guilty of child abuse, terrorizing their own children with tales of the great orange boogeyman.

In days gone by, the newly elected president was afforded a "honeymoon period" to put his agenda in place before being subjected to severe criticism. President Obama's honeymoon period arguably never ended, but for all other presidents, this usually lasts several months. President-elect Trump's "honeymoon period" lasted several minutes after his election--it ended months before he even took office. Angry young leftists across America--especially on college campuses--took the streets, blocked roads, and even rioted. They weren't protesting Trump as much as our democratic system itself--they just don't like the outcome of this election and do not respect the will of the electorate.

Virtually none of the young protesters have any understanding of the issues in this election beyond the talking points of far left media outlets that trade in blatant bias, grotesque exaggeration, and outright lies. And, yes, that includes mainstream television networks and major U.S. dailies--Wikileaks proved what we've long suspected--some of the biggest names in news were in cahoots with the Democratic National Committee to defeat Trump. The delicate snowflakes on campus are happy to parrot the mantras of their moral superiors on the left and reduce Donald Trump and his supporters to vile caricature.

Trump doesn't want to curtail immigration but he wants to stop illegal immigration--so he must hate Mexicans, blacks, and the LGBTQ community. His supporters, too. Trump made comments about women 17 years ago--so he and his supporters must be misogynists who are not just "deplorables" but irredeemable--unlike, say, convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jama and former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, who get plenty of respect on the left. Trump borrowed a line from a Clinton supporter that Obama wasn't born in America and ran with it? He and his supporters must hate blacks because . . . Obama is black. (Trump also claimed that conservative Sen. Ted Cruz was not eligible to run for President because he was born in Canada--Trump and his supporters must hate Canadians, too.)

College students traditionally align themselves with the Democratic Party because most have at least a vague sense of their own vulnerabilities--most know that their college degree doesn't give them the skills to be in high demand for good paying jobs, so they gravitate to the party that brands itself the friend of the downtrodden. I completely understand.

But this generation is different--sure, there are exceptions, but for too many, it's not enough to wear buttons and go to the polls, then bemoan the outcome of the election. No, no. This is the generation of entitlement--coddled from birth in households where seldom was heard a discouraging word. When the evil Donald Trump was elected, they did what they've been programmed to do--they had a collective meltdown and threw the biggest temper tantrum of the 21st Century.

This is the result of "safe spaces," of inventing microaggressions to punish traditional masculinity, of suspending fraternities when a few of their members have the audacity to dress up like Mexicans and Indians on Halloween, of criminalizing the game of tag, of being driven around all weekend to participate in sports where they don't keep score and everybody gets a trophy for showing up. This is the result of a culture where hard work is eschewed and "increasingly sophisticated video games are luring young men away from the workforce."

Most reprehensible of all are the young college males who have taken to the streets. A lot of concerned adults have have gone to bat for these fools over the past several years as the Democratic Party has manifested greater and greater hostility to their rights. If you don't know what I'm talking about, educate yourself--see e.g., here. Do these young men even know this is going on? Of course not. They're too busy practicing their groupthink to notice.

Last Friday, conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh lamented: "It's a shame what liberalism has done to Millennial-aged men, way too many of them. They've demasculated them. They have neutered them in just incredible ways. That's the only way to describe this. . . . to listen to them talk, they have become full-fledged, walking robots of the indoctrination that they've had." Harsh, but at least close to the truth.

For the few readers pissed off by what I've written--yes, yes, I know there are other important issues aside from due process on campus--and, yes, I'm concerned about some of Trump's stances. For example, on the single issue most important to Trump, trade, Trump is closer to Bernie Sanders than Obama or the Ted Cruz wing of the Republican Party. (Are you aware that Obama gave up trying to get TPP passed in the wake of Trump's election?) In case you can't remember as far back as August, Bernie was the candidate of choice of young men on campus.

The generation of entitlement is transforming us into the culture of entitlement. The corrupt media is happy to lend a hand. The reaction to Donald Trump's election on college campuses across America is worse than over-the-top, it's worse than childish, its worse than uninformed. It's a sign of a culture in free-fall.

Friday, November 4, 2016

Hillary Clinton once defended an accused rapist when she was a public defender. Clinton eventually had him plead to a lesser offense. See here.

Throughout this campaign, pro-Trump supporters have been saying that the accused was, in fact, a rapist, that Clinton knew he was a rapist, and that Clinton laughed about the "rapist's" twelve-year-old alleged victim.

Clinton is being unfairly maligned in this instance.

First, the suggestion that a criminal defendant is not worthy of a defense just because he was accused of rape is repulsive. Sometimes--more often than most people would like to think--men and boys accused of rape are innocent. If you need examples, spend a few weeks rummaging through this blog. You can start here and here.

Second, Clinton later gave an interview where she said: "Of course he claimed he didn’t. All this stuff. He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs. [laughs]" See here: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/

Clinton wasn't laughing at the alleged victim. Nor was she suggesting that the man was not entitled to a defense. Her attitude was similar to one I've encountered many times from certain members of the bar: when some attorneys recount the cases they've handled, you'd think they were Clarence Darrow--invariably, the attorney was brilliant and clever, and if the outcome was at all favorable, it was obtained against all odds and was far better than the client deserved. Generally, the more esteemed the trial attorney, the less braggadocio you will hear. But you will rarely hear this from any attorney, "Wow, did I foul up that case--I was really lucky to get the result I got."

Third, the man pled to a lesser offense, something that happens all too often even when the man happens to be innocent. See here. I have no idea if this particular defendant was innocent, but plea bargains are scarcely iron-clad barometers of the truth. It would be helpful if we stopped buying into this notion that the man had to be guilty just because he was charged.

We are stranded in a political culture where, when it comes to college men accused of rape, hostility to due process is the norm. No longer is this hostility limited to law-and-order types--the "progressives" on the left have taken this hostility to new, chilling, levels. We fear that if the Democrats are elected next Tuesday, the Obama administration's hostility will continue. It is unfortunate that some on the right feel the need to score points any way they can--even by suggesting it was somehow wrong to defend a man accused of rape and by assuming that the accused had to be guilty merely because he was accused.

Wednesday, November 2, 2016

It was discovered in March 2015 that during her tenure as U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton exclusively used a private email server for official communications, thus comprising United States security. To insure that no one could see what she was up to, Clinton deleted thousands of emails with a software program called “BleachBit," and an aide to Bill Clinton used physical force to destroy two of Hillary Clinton's phones.

The Justice Department investigated. Last summer the Attorney General recused herself from the email investigation because it was learned she met privately with former President Bill Clinton on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport--a meeting that many believe was intended to escape public notice. Lynch handed off the decision about whether to prosecute to James Comey, the Director of the FBI and an Obama appointee. Comey concluded that Hillary Clinton was "extremely careless" in her handling of classified information, but the FBI's investigation previously was closed with a recommendation that Clinton not be prosecuted.

Last week, the FBI investigation was reopened after FBI agents discovered hundreds of thousands of new emails on the laptop belonging to Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's top aide. Abedin allegedly claimed she had no idea how the emails got there.

Is the FBI's investigation legitimate? Of course not. It's sexism, pure and simple. Time Magazine has published an op-ed by Robin Lakoff, a professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, in which she writes:

I am mad. I am mad because I am scared. And if you are a woman, you should be, too. Emailgate is a bitch hunt, but the target is not Hillary Clinton. It’s us.

The only reason the whole email flap has legs is because the candidate is female. Can you imagine this happening to a man? Clinton is guilty of SWF (Speaking While Female), and emailgate is just a reminder to us all that she has no business doing what she’s doing and must be punished, for the sake of all decent women everywhere. There is so much of that going around.

Lakoff adds: "It’s not about emails; it’s about public communication by a woman in general."

Lakoff's loony viewpoint needs no refutation--it is self-evidently stupid. But make no mistake, that viewpoint isn't an outlier, it's an official talking point.

This week, President Obama was asked by Samantha Bee to predict how Hillary Clinton will be unfairly criticized, the way he was unfairly criticized, after she's elected: “When Hillary is president,” Bee asked, “what do you think will be the female equivalent of ‘you weren’t born in this country’?”
Obama responded: “I think the equivalent will be: ‘She’s tired. She’s moody. She’s being emotional.” He added, “When men are ambitious, it’s just taken for granted. ‘Well, of course, they should be ambitious.’ When women are ambitious, ‘Why?’ That theme, I think, will continue throughout her presidency, and it’s contributed to this notion that somehow she is hiding something.”

When legitimate criticism is dismissed as sexism, America isn't ready for a female president. We can't have a commander-in-chief who is immune from criticism solely because of her genitalia. We've made this point previously. See here: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2016/08/is-america-ready-for-woman-president.html

It's time for America to grow up and to call viewpoints like Robin Lakoff's for what they are: bullshit.

Kelly had the audacity to express concern that college men accused of sexual assault have been stripped of their due process rights.

That's it, you're saying?

Yep. Kelly is being treated as a misogynist because she wants fair proceedings that give the accused the right to know the charges in advance and a fair opportunity to be heard and to defend against them.

You're surprised that an organization like Media Matters hates fairness? Then you don't know that to the far left, anyone who dares to speak up for due process in college sex proceedings is a rape apologist.

Kelly also had the gall to criticize the Obama administration's insistence that the accused prove an element of the sexual assault, consent--thus unconstitutionally flipping the time-honored burden of proof to prove wrongdoing. Flipping the burden of proof in rape cases has long been a dream of radical feminists.
Further supposed evidence of Kelly's rape apologism is her criticism of reporters who treat the Rolling Stone false gang rape story as "noble" and who refuse to approach college rape cases with "an open mind" because "in some instances," young men are falsely accused.

Because, you see, treating allegations with an open mind is evidence that you hate women. We've posted many stories here to prove it.

And that's where we've come. Anyone who dares to call for keeping an open mind or who voices concern for fair processes so that the truth may be aired must hate women. Masculinity is a pathology.

The cultural elites who dominate our public discourse on sexual assault are so out-of-step with the vast Middle America, they have no clue how loony, how anti-intellectual, or how hateful they really are.

Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner's defense of his magazine's decision to believe a rape accuser--and run with the infamous story about an alleged brutal gang rape at a UVA fraternity--was downright chilling:

Wenner admitted the magazine’s biggest mistake was not reaching out to Jackie’s alleged rapists.

“We did want to respect her wishes as the victim of a horrible rape . . . looking back with 20/20 hindsight, we should have demanded the identity of her [attackers],” he said.

Even so, Wenner suggested the error was unavoidable.
“We were the victim of one of these rare, once-in-a-lifetime things that nobody in journalism can protect themselves from,” he insisted.

Read it again: Wenner absolves his magazine of blame because poor little innocent Rolling Stone followed a practice that "nobody in journalism" could "protect themselves from"--it believed the accuser. Wenner even referred to the accuser--better known as "Jackie"--as "the victim of a horrible rape." Wenner made sure to add: “We are deeply committed to factual accuracy.” And: “We did everything reasonable, appropriate, up to the highest standards.” (Source)
It was poor little, defenseless Rolling Stone--with its circulation of of a million-and-a-half readers--that was the victim here, not the the young men of Phi Kappa Psi fraternity, who were unjustly demonized as overseers of a rape pit, or the university official who was made out to be a rape enabler.

Of course, Wenner's defense of the magazine's decision to run with the story contradicts the conclusion of Columbia University's School of Journalism, which Wenner brought in to investigate the magazine's failures--that investigation concluded that it was "journalistic failure that was avoidable." (Source)

But why are we surprised when the publisher of a major magazine testifies under oath that it was "reasonable" and in accordance with "the highest standards" of journalism to believe the accuser without bothering to concede even the possibility that there might be another side to the story? In fact, Wenner's logic is the product of a culture that has allowed gender extremists on campus and in the media to dominate the public discourse on sexual assault. The purveyors of this culture unflinchingly demonize college men and reduce them to vile caricature, insist that college campuses are rape pits, claim with a straight face that women don't lie about rape, and preach that due process for men accused of rape on campus is a luxury college women can't afford. In short, they buy into something that even RAINN, the preeminent anti-rape organization in America, denounced: the "rape culture" meme.

The real lessons from the Rolling Stone disaster are that it is never right to rush to judgment and treat an accusation as tantamount to a conviction even where the accuser "seems" credible--and that it is both journalistic malpractice and morally grotesque to refuse to concede even the possibility that there might be another side to the story. It underscores the critical need for due process in "he said, she said" scenarios involving sex claims -- something feminists are happy to dispense with on college campuses. And, it affirms what Prof. Alan Dershowitz once wrote about rape accusations: ". . . don’t assume anything until all the evidence is in. The story is almost never what it appears to be on first impression."
The "rape culture" lie needs to stop, and the extremists need to be exposed for what they are.

Thursday, October 27, 2016

In this news story, a woman had a "sexual connection with a minor"--specifically, a 14-year-old boy--the news report says the sex was "consensual" though it is far from certain how a child can adequately "consent" to sex with an adult, even if he is a boy. Nevertheless, the woman claimed the boy "forced himself" on her.

So now, this child has been twice-victimized--by the same woman: he was statutorily raped, and he's the victim of a false rape claim.

Do you think the news reports would call such an encounter "consensual" if the genders were flipped?

Friday, October 14, 2016

Did you know that Donald Trump "stalked" Hillary Clinton during that debate?

No? Neither did 66.5 million eyewitnesses.

But, hey, I guess if a woman said it, it has to be true--eyewitnesses be damned.

All kidding aside, the fact that this allegation was lodged by Mrs. Clinton--even though a massive audience knows it wasn't true--and the fact that the allegation wasn't refuted by the mainstream media tells us everything we need to know this campaign.

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Donald Trump held a press conference before last Sunday night's debate with Bill Clinton's sexual assault accusers. Then he had the accusers sit in the audience and watch the debate--the same audience where Bill Clinton sat. It was an unprecedented political spectacle. Fox News Trump supporter Sean Hannity and others on Fox News have treated each of Bill Clinton's accusers as sexual assault victims.

The goal of many allied with Trump is to claim that Hillary Clinton hates women as shown by her actions in attacking her husband's accusers. We previously decried this tactic, noting that "the attacks on Mrs. Clinton for defending her husband echo the shrill siren of radical feminism" which assumes guilt on the basis of an accusation. While it is certainly fair to point out Mrs. Clinton's hypocrisy when she urges that women who cry rape "should be believed" while her husband's accusers should not, it is absurd to suggest that it's proper to assume rape on the basis of an accusation.

I didn't have to wonder long. The accusers have come out of the woodwork and, mirabile dictu!--they somehow found their way to the New York Times, less than four weeks before the election. The one accusation concerns an alleged event that occurred more than 30 years ago. That's right--30 years ago. Chances are, Trump can't possibly prove he was somewhere other than where the woman claims he was because any evidence that could support an alibi is obviously long gone by now.

Trump claims his locker room bragging was all talk--that he did not sexually assault anyone. For the same reason that we should not assume Bill Clinton committed sexual assault based on accusations, we should not assume Donald Trump did so, either. Nor should we assume the accusers are liars. We should not take sides unless the claims have been subjected to a fair hearing.

Unfortunately, that's not how a lot of people will look at it.

The mainstream media--which has no use for Trump--will report these accusations 24/7 if possible in an effort to put the final nail in the coffin of the Trump campaign.

Trump supporters will take a different approach--and the real question is: how will Fox News treat these accusations against Trump? Will Sean Hannity et al. give Mr. Trump the benefit of the doubt--something they steadfastly refuse to do for Bill Clinton? Will they try to smear the accusers even after they treated Bill Clinton's accusers as if they were Mother Theresa's sisters? Or will they do the right thing and report the facts about these accusations without taking sides as to their veracity? And if Fox News does the right thing in this instance, will that expose its hypocrisy because Fox News has failed to do the same in Bill Clinton's case?

My guess: Trump supporters will try to make the case that the accusations against Bill Clinton are credible while the ones against Trump aren't. And my guess is that most objective people will see through that.

That's what happens when you use sexual assault accusations to further a political agenda. If you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

No one should complain about the outcome of this election, whatever it might be. Americans don’t deserve a good president because they don’t demand one.

Mrs. Clinton and her news media allies (pretty much the entire mainstream media) are only interested in talking about Donald Trump’s idiocy du jour. For his part, Donald Trump is primarily interested in attacking leaders of his own party who aren’t supporting him. The rest of the GOP and its media outlet, Fox News, are more interested in catching Clinton in lies about old emails or maybe even hoping she faints again.

The American people are even worse. We just witnessed the most dramatic presidential debate in history--and the most talked-about thing is what? A guy in a red sweater who asked a question that wasn’t important.

So what's so important that we should be discussing, you ask?

For one thing, Americans ought to be talking about Obamacare. Barack Obama considers it his signature accomplishment, and Mrs. Clinton is running as an Obama acolyte. Obama sold it to Americans with his Pajama Boy ad campaign and promises that it would “reduce the costs of most Americans” and that “no matter what you’ve heard, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor . . . .” In fact, Obama made those claims repeatedly.

The Pajama Boy campaign turned out to be a dud—akin to trying to peddle New Coke (younger readers may not know--in the mid-1980s, Coke changed the formula of its iconic drink--it didn’t last). And the promises turned out to be wrong, to put it charitably. An architect of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, later admitted in a moment of arrogant candor that the promises were deceitful—because “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage” in this instance. Health care premiums have skyrocketed to the point that Bill Clinton—the man Mrs. Clinton said would be “in charge of revitalizing the economy” in her administration--last week said this: "So you've got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 million more people have health care and then the people who are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half. It's the craziest thing in the world."

At this week’s debate, a questioner asked: “Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, it is not affordable. Premiums have gone up. Deductibles have gone up. Copays have gone up. Prescriptions have gone up. And the coverage has gone down. What will you do to bring the cost down and make coverage better?” Even Mrs. Clinton agreed with the questioner. “. . . I agree with you. Premiums have gotten too high. Copays, deductibles, prescription drug costs . . . .” And: “. . . we've got to get costs down. We've got to provide additional help to small businesses so that they can afford to provide health insurance.”

The most important accomplishment of the Obama administration is a mess, and you'd think this would be the principal issue in this campaign. So why aren’t we holding both candidates’ feet to the fire and insisting that they lay out detailed plans about how they’re going to fix Obamacare, or replace it?

Sunday, October 9, 2016

[Edit: During the October 9, 2016 presidential debate, Donald Trump stated that his comments in 2005 were "locker room talk" and that he did not sexually assault women.]

Back in 2005, Donald Trump bragged, "I just start kissing [beautiful women] . . . . Just kiss. Don't even wait. And when you're a star, let you do it. You can do anything. Whatever you wait. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

Should we believe Donald Trump was telling the truth--that he would kiss women, and grab women "by the p**ssy," without waiting for anything, including the women's consent? Because that sure sounds an awful lot like sexual assault, doesn't it? Or maybe Trump thinks that the women's after-the-fact consent--because he's a "star" and all--could undo sexual assault?

Pointing this out is not to condone Hillary Clinton's conduct or policies. Readers of this blog know that--just look at the link at the top left of this page. I am just asking if we should take Donald Trump at his word, because if we do, it sure sounds like he was bragging about committing sexual assault.

And I'm wondering when the women will come forward, a la Bill Cosby? Perhaps this disclosure will trigger women coming forward.

One way or the other, this presidential election might just present the worst choice we've ever had.

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

When Pakistani monks--who are men--had United Airlines move a female passenger because their cultural beliefs forbade them from sitting next to her on a flight, the media gave voice to the woman, who felt she'd been discriminated. “We can’t discriminate against half the population,” the woman said, “for a belief from another nation.” The woman has demanded that United Airlines apologize to every female on that plane, including United employees, and change their policy. The woman said she was intent on protecting women’s rights. United said it regretted that the woman was unhappy and that it has "zero tolerance" for discrimination. See here

But when Muslim women insist that they can't exercise with men around at Harvard and a lot of other places, the men are often banned from the gym for hours each week. The women find it "awkward" working out in a co-ed gym--it makes them "uncomfortable." The communications director of Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences called it a "reasonable request."

When Muslim men asked for a religious accommodation that, in truth, did not inconvenience a woman at all, the media gives voice to the woman who insists she was discriminated against. When women ask for a religious accommodation that indisputably does cause some inconvenience to men, it's a reasonable request.

This was Hillary Clinton much of the night whenever Donald Trump spoke--smug condescension oozed from every pore of her face. She donned this visage pretty much every time Trump talked about our broken system or lodged a criticism of her positions.

It was a look intended to derisively mock, belittle, and trivialize Trump. At one point, while laughing smugly, she actually said this to Trump, "You know, just join the debate by saying more crazy things."

Some pundits are claiming that any criticism of Clinton's smug demeanor is rank sexism--see, e.g., here and here. Of course, some of these pundits could find sexism in a ham sandwich.

If we can't criticize a candidate for her actions without being accused of being sexist, then America isn't ready for a woman president.

The problem with Clinton's smug attitude isn't that it mocked Trump--Trump is often an overbearing buffoon who deserves to be mocked in other settings. The problem is--like it or not--that Clinton's smugness in this setting implicitly disrespected and mocked Trump's many supporters and a lot of other people who are on the fence but who are sympathetic to his core message.

Trump gives voice to the frustrations of millions about a broken system--and the establishment that runs it--that has utterly failed them. Yet for too much of this campaign, Clinton and her ilk have disrespected these people and their concerns--and have dismissed Trump's movement as nothing more than a "basket of deplorables."

Clinton and her supporters, in and out of the media, dismiss--and mock--the millions who feel disenfranchised, and who look to Trump as their voice, at their peril.

And Clinton's media pom-pom girls do her no favors by dismissing criticisms of her smugness as "sexism." They need to urge her to ditch it next time around--or else maybe America really isn't ready for a woman president.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Who cares who "won" the debate? At least, who cares who "won" in any traditional sense--you know, "on points." The political "experts" don't know what the hell they're talking about. A lot of them thought Jimmy Carter tied or beat Reagan in their October 28, 1980 debate.

Trump's pitch was Hillary et al. have made a mess of things for a long time, so why does anyone think it will improve by electing her? Hillary's pitch was, I'm not Trump.

Hillary was plastic, uninspiring, smug and condescending. Trump was angry, obnoxious, inarticulate and overbearing. But the only thing that matters is how it played to undecided voters who have paid little to no attention to the election until last night--almost everyone else has made up his or her mind. What they saw was a steamroller who manhandled the moderator and his opponent unlike anything in memory--it was absurd, shocking, and historic. It was typical of Trump's performance in debates throughout this election season.

As for Trump--he's not a conservative, of course. It would have been interesting to see a true conservative, like Cruz or Rand Paul, debate Clinton. Trump's primary issue in this campaign is and has been trade. When it comes to trade, his positions are a threat to free markets and global commerce--very anti-conservative. So are Hillary's, though a lot of people suspect her positions are designed to buy votes and that she wouldn't carry through on them. President Obama is much better on trade than either Trump or Hillary. Trump doesn't care much about any other issue--the "law and order" thing is a recent campaign strategy. And sometimes at his rallies, he almost forgets to mention "the wall." He's not articulate--a great friend of mine, who happens to be an expert on rhetoric, said this about the debate last night: "You’d think that someone who talks so much, who spews such an incredible, non-stop volume of verbiage, would eventually, even accidentally, answer a fucking question." Trump eschews serious study of the issues. The GOP got what it deserved when it nominated him. Any of the other GOP candidates would have been more articulate, more civil, and more knowledgeable about the issues than Trump--just as Mitt Romney was. Then again, Romney lost. And for the first time in a long time, a Republican wasn't pushed around by the moderator or his Democrat opponent. If Trump lost, he beat himself.

As for Clinton: aside from disdaining college men (any college man who would vote for her ought to have his head examined), she is perhaps the most unaccomplished major political figure of my lifetime. Her devotees typically don't really know where she stands on the issues. In the debate last night, she rushed to judgment and tied the Charlotte and Tulsa shootings to race, then she accused all of us as being "implicitly biased" when it comes to blacks, and in the same breath unwittingly contradicted herself by saying "too many of us in our great country jump to conclusions about each other." She wants to deny anyone who's on a terrorist watch list from being able to buy a gun (Trump agreed--but, to his credit, added that if someone shouldn't be on the list, we should help them get off).

There are a lot of issues that are manufactured by the candidates and the news media. Does anyone care about Trump's tax returns, except Hillary supporters? Does anyone seriously think the nutty birther issue was related to race?

But even the issues that matter don't really matter. And that's the point. Politics has become a religion--facts don't matter, feelings do. We rationalize to deal with inconvenient truths. If you liked Clinton, you thought she "won" last night. If you liked Trump, you thought he "won" last night. If you are someone who paid no attention to this election until last night and think the system is broken and want someone to shake it up, you might have thought Trump "won." That doesn't mean those people are too stupid to understand what Trump really is.

I'll vote for one or the other--full disclosure, I've become one of those "undecideds." I am watching one particular issue that would impact me personally--depending on this issue, I might vote for Hillary.

As for last night, I, personally, don't know who "won." I can think of a nation that has lost.

The current administration has manifested an unprecedented hostility to due process for college men accused of sexual assault. We've written literally hundreds of posts about it since April 2011 when the the Department of Education issued its infamous "Dear Colleague" letter. For a long time, it was difficult to fathom that any administration could be worse on these issues, but we have every reason to believe that a Hillary Clinton administration would be worse.

Clinton hired Zerlina Maxwell to work for her. Maxwell has written this: “Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist.” Maxwell said that false accusations "can be undone by an investigation that clears the accused, especially if it is done quickly."

As Secretary of State, Clinton made one of the most heinous false rape claims imaginable. In 2011, Clinton was trying to justify regime change in Libya–a goal not authorized by either the U.S. Congress or the UN. "Clinton told the press that Gaddafi was passing out Viagra to his troops so they could go out and rape dissidents en masse, and that the troops were indeed engaging in mass rapes." The problem? Amnesty International later reported "that there was absolutely no factual support for these accusations. As Amnesty International reported, 'Not only have we not met any victims, but we have not even met any persons who have met victims.'”

It is ironic that Hillary Clinton has not always exhibited fidelity to the decidedly unAmerican principles she now espouses. Much has been written about Mrs. Clinton's two-facedness on this issue--she did not automatically believe her husband’s sexual assault accusers, and, in fact, she actively worked to destroy their credibility. We won't repeat those arguments as they could fill a book.

Mrs. Clinton is, sadly, a product of the modern Democratic Party, which foments division by playing a nasty game of group identity politics that trumps fidelity to due process.

Monday, September 26, 2016

Midway through my opening address for the Brisbane Writers Festival earlier this month, Yassmin Abdel-Magied, a Sudanese-born Australian engineer and 25-year-old memoirist, walked out. Her indignant comments about the event might have sunk into obscurity, along with my speech, had they not been republished by The Guardian. Twenty minutes in, this audience member apparently turned to her mother: “ ‘Mama, I can’t sit here,’ I said, the corners of my mouth dragging downwards. ‘I cannot legitimize this.’ ” She continued: “The faces around me blurred. As my heels thudded against the grey plastic of the flooring, harmonizing with the beat of the adrenaline pumping through my veins, my mind was blank save for one question. ‘How is this happening?’ ”

I’m asking the same thing.

Briefly, my address maintained that fiction writers should be allowed to write fiction — thus should not let concerns about “cultural appropriation” constrain our creation of characters from different backgrounds than our own. I defended fiction as a vital vehicle for empathy. If we have permission to write only about our own personal experience, there is no fiction, but only memoir. Honestly, my thesis seemed so self-evident that I’d worried the speech would be bland.

Nope — not in the topsy-turvy universe of identity politics. The festival immediately disavowed the address, though the organizers had approved the thrust of the talk in advance. A “Right of Reply” session was hastily organized. When, days later, The Guardian ran the speech, social media went ballistic. Mainstream articles followed suit. I plan on printing out The New Republic’s “Lionel Shriver Shouldn’t Write About Minorities” and taping it above my desk as a chiding reminder.

Viewing the world and the self through the prism of advantaged and disadvantaged groups, the identity-politics movement — in which behavior like huffing out of speeches and stirring up online mobs is par for the course — is an assertion of generational power. Among millennials and those coming of age behind them, the race is on to see who can be more righteous and aggrieved — who can replace the boring old civil rights generation with a spikier brand.

When I was growing up in the ’60s and early ’70s, conservatives were the enforcers of conformity. It was the right that was suspicious, sniffing out Communists and scrutinizing public figures for signs of sedition.

Now the role of oppressor has passed to the left. In Australia, where I spoke, Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to do or say anything likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate,” providing alarming latitude in the restriction of free speech. It is Australia’s conservatives arguing for the amendment of this law.

As a lifelong Democratic voter, I’m dismayed by the radical left’s ever-growing list of dos and don’ts — by its impulse to control, to instill self-censorship as well as to promote real censorship, and to deploy sensitivity as an excuse to be brutally insensitive to any perceived enemy. There are many people who see these frenzies about cultural appropriation, trigger warnings, micro-aggressions and safe spaces as overtly crazy. The shrill tyranny of the left helps to push them toward Donald Trump.

Ironically, only fellow liberals will be cowed by terror of being branded a racist (a pejorative lobbed at me in recent days — one that, however groundless, tends to stick). But there’s still such a thing as a real bigot, and a real misogynist. In obsessing over micro-aggressions like the sin of uttering the commonplace Americanism “you guys” to mean “you all,” activists persecute fellow travelers who already care about equal rights.

Moreover, people who would hamper free speech always assume that they’re designing a world in which only their enemies will have to shut up. But free speech is fragile. Left-wing activists are just as dependent on permission to speak their minds as their detractors.

In an era of weaponized sensitivity, participation in public discourse is growing so perilous, so fraught with the danger of being caught out for using the wrong word or failing to uphold the latest orthodoxy in relation to disability, sexual orientation, economic class, race or ethnicity, that many are apt to bow out. Perhaps intimidating their elders into silence is the intention of the identity-politics cabal — and maybe my generation should retreat to our living rooms and let the young people tear one another apart over who seemed to imply that Asians are good at math.

But do we really want every intellectual conversation to be scrupulously cleansed of any whiff of controversy? Will people, so worried about inadvertently giving offense, avoid those with different backgrounds altogether? Is that the kind of fiction we want — in which the novels of white writers all depict John Cheever’s homogeneous Connecticut suburbs of the 1950s, while the real world outside their covers becomes ever more diverse?

Ms. Abdel-Magied got the question right: How is this happening? How did the left in the West come to embrace restriction, censorship and the imposition of an orthodoxy at least as tyrannical as the anti-Communist, pro-Christian conformism I grew up with? Liberals have ominously relabeled themselves “progressives,” forsaking a noun that had its roots in “liber,” meaning free. To progress is merely to go forward, and you can go forward into a pit.

Protecting freedom of speech involves protecting the voices of people with whom you may violently disagree. In my youth, liberals would defend the right of neo-Nazis to march down Main Street. I cannot imagine anyone on the left making that case today.

Friday, September 23, 2016

A male student at the University of Michigan was accused of sexual assault by a female student who claimed that when they had sex, she was too intoxicated to consent.

A university investigator interviewed 23 witnesses and concluded that "there is no evidence of the complainant's outward signs of incapacitation that the respondent would have observed prior to initiating the sexual activity."

End of case--based on that finding of fact, there is no evidence to find the male student responsible for sexual assault. She reasonably appeared to him to have capacity, so her claim must be rejected. The accused cannot be expected to read his sex partner's inner thoughts--if she agrees to have sex and her outward manifestations reasonably suggest she has capacity, he's not guilty of sexual assault. Period.

The woman appealed. And somehow, the administrative appeal board overturned the investigator's findings and found the man had violated the sexual conduct code. In late June, he signed a resolution agreement agreeing to leave U-M.

He's changed his mind, and he's suing now. So is she. He's alleging that his due process rights have been violated. The same old-same old.

This case is not difficult. It doesn't present unique issues, nor does it raise matters worthy of any debate whatsoever. What the University of Michigan did here was grossly unjust to the male student, and its unconscionable decision appears to have been motivated by the accused's gender. All persons of goodwill should outraged--and alumni at U-M ought to demand justice for the young man.

Thursday, September 22, 2016

When it comes to sexual assault accusations, our moral superiors in the sexual grievance cartel tell us we must assume guilt based on an accusation, but that it is okay to automatically take the side of an accuser, even if we know absolutely nothing about the case or the parties involved.

Those who represent defendants often oppose eliminating the statutes of limitations. The theory goes that the fairness of a trial is compromised by the passage of time, so prosecutors shouldn’t sit on evidence of a crime and wait to charge a person once memories have faded, documents have been thrown out and alibis get hard to prove. This is why other criminal charges — with rare exception — have time limits, they argue, and rape and sexual assault should not be treated differently.

Rape and sexual assault are different, however. Other crimes are much more likely to be reported quickly, but we know that victims of sexual violence often take years to come forward because they may feel ashamed, mistakenly blame themselves for what happened or fear they will not be believed. Police and prosecutors aren’t holding onto evidence; they haven’t been informed that there was a crime.

For constitutional reasons, the Justice for Victims Act would not be retroactive; it can’t re-open the door to criminal courts that statutes of limitations already have slammed shut. But it will help victims of rape and sexual assault in the future.

If Gov. Brown signs this bill into law, statutes of limitations no longer will be a sexual predator’s best friend and a victim’s worst enemy.

Statutes of limitations aren't designed to protect the guilty--though sometimes they do--they are designed to protect the innocent, the wrongly accused. Allred doesn't even bother to say how the wrongly accused should be protected against old claims they can't possibly defend against. By refusing to acknowledge that the wrongly accused are deserving of any such protections whatsoever, Allred underscores the injustice of the position she advocates.

If someone is accused today of committing rape 20, 30, or 40 years ago, there is no realistic way he will be able to defend against it. I can think of few things more frightening. It is almost certain he will not be able to establish an alibi. All witnesses, all documents showing, for example, he was somewhere else when the alleged crime occurred, will have been lost to the mists of time.

None of that is a concern to Allred or her ilk. All that matters is that it will be easier for women to get convictions many years after the rape.

“The statute of limitations is there for a reason,” said Natasha Minsker, director of the ACLU of California Center for Advocacy and Policy “When a case is prosecuted literally decades after the event, it becomes much more ... difficult to prove that you are wrongfully accused." See here.

It is painful to see that so many in the progressive camp have become so terribly hostile to due process and basic notions of fairness. They've hitched their wagons to group identity politics and don't think that defendants accused of crimes involving a penis are entitled to any protections. I can't think of any other issue where self-professing liberals are happy to see due process rolled back for a particular group. For what other crime have liberals applauded eliminating statutes of limitations? A friend of mine recently said that he didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him. Thank goodness for the ACLU and the defense bar, but the rest of the party seems to have forgotten how they once revered fundamental notions of justice.

Geraldo Rivera--best known for a disastrous publicity stunt that involved opening gangster Al Capone's vault that was supposed to contain untold riches but that only contained a few empty bottles--has declared he was wrong for supporting ex-Fox News head Roger Ailes, recently accused of sexual harassment by ex-Fox News female personalities.

Rivera now says: "Like victims of sexual assault, those alleging harassment deserve the presumption of credibility.”

Rivera is suggesting that men accused of sexual assault or harassment and who deny the allegations lodged against them should be presumed to have lied. After all, both parties can't have the presumption of credibility, can they?

Students attending Carleton University this fall, women and men, will likely find themselves subject to propaganda aimed at convincing them the campus is rife with sexual predators.

Over the last few months a cadre of academics, outreach workers, student and union association members, and sexual assault survivors has been insisting that the university administration admit the campus is pervaded by a “rape culture.” They want that label included in policies the university is preparing as it tries to conform to the Ontario Liberal government’s diktats on sexual violence.

The province requires that, by the end of the year, Ontario universities and colleges establish policies to comply with Bill 132, the Sexual Violence and Workplace Harassment Action Plan. The intent, supposedly, is to end sexual violence and harassment in educational institutions.

The concept, which has it roots in 1970s feminist ideology, was deployed by the government in a report on sexual violence entitled “It’s Never OK” that called for an end to “rape culture on campuses.” Rape culture was defined as one in which “dominant ideas, social practices, media images and societal institutions implicitly or explicitly condone sexual assault by normalizing or trivializing male sexual violence and by blaming survivors for their own abuse.”

Nobody can deny the widespread sexual exploitation of women in our society. Think of all the magazine ads, Internet sites and TV shows that display women as objects for male pleasure. Nor is there a lack of examples where the justice system has failed women by effectively tolerating or excusing male sexual violence.

But is it reasonable – and responsible – to claim the “culture” at Carleton University is dominated by ideas, practices, imagery and institutional arrangements that condone sexual assault, trivialize sexual violence or blame the victim?

I have no special purchase on how women on campus perceive their circumstances. Some may well feel themselves under constant threat. But individual feelings, or even individual experience, don’t necessarily reflect collective reality.

Carleton’s safety department received 58 sexual assault reports in the nine years between 2007 and 2015. With three exceptions, they all fit the Criminal Code definition of level one sexual assaults; that is, assaults where the “sexual integrity” of the victim is violated whether through bodily contact or unwanted words or gestures of a sexual nature.

There were only two reports – one in 2010 and one in 2012 – of level two sexual assaults, in which the threat of bodily harm was involved.

The single reported level three sexual assault – aggravated sexual assault – involved a 23-year-old woman who suffered a broken jaw and a dislocated shoulder when she was beaten unconscious and raped in a science lab in 2007.

Of course, many sexual assaults go unreported – as many as two-thirds, by some estimates. In 2015, there were nine “reported” sexual assaults. But if all the unreported incidents had also been counted, that means there may have been as many as 27 sexual assaults on a campus with 30,000 students, more than half of whom are women.

Obviously, even a single sexual assault is one too many. Nor can there be any excuse – alcohol, drugs, cultural attitudes, misinterpreted signals – for sexual violence. But in light of the numbers, reported and estimated, it is an exercise in ideological extremism to suggest Carleton University condones rape culture, tacitly or otherwise.

Nevertheless, the ideologues denounce administrators for being in denial about the “problem with campus rape,” as one pundit recently put it. The charge is intellectually fraudulent and tantamount to moral blackmail. If the administration denies the “rape culture” label, it will be accused of putting the university’s reputation ahead of student safety. If it includes the label in its sexual violence policy, well, what parent would send a child to a school that effectively admits students aren’t safe?

The “rape culture” canard insults not only every man – students, teachers and staff – with its implicit message that they are to be regarded as potential sexual predators, but also every woman who has a father, husband, brother or son on campus.

Robert Sibley, a veteran Ottawa journalist, holds a PhD in political science from Carleton University, where he occasionally lectures on political philosophy.

Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Film director Nate Parker, who is black, was a 19-year-old wrestler at Penn State in August 1999 he was accused of raping a white woman. Parker admitted to having sex with the woman but claimed it was consensual. The accuser was inebriated prior to the the alleged assault but a witness said she was coherent. The accuser tried to tried to trap Mr. Parker into confessing that he raped an unconscious woman in a recorded telephone confession (Mr. Parker didn't know it was being recorded). Here's what Mr. Parker said: “You were all for it, you know what I mean,” he said. “It’d, it’d be different if you were just laying there, but you weren’t. You were active, you know what I mean?” And: ". . . if . . . you’re giving me the vibe that you’re cool with it… I’m going to assume you’re fine. You know? I’m going to assume that nothing’s wrong. And that’s what I did.” After the accusation, Mr. Parker said a detective working on the case threatened him, “You wrestlers for the past 10 years have raped and battered this whole town. I’m going to get you.” Prosecutors brought charges.

In an October 2001 trial. Mr. Parker was acquitted on all charges by a jury in central Pennsylvania that was all white one except for one black juror.

Now that Mr. Parker is a prominent film director, he's found himself in the cross hairs of the sexual grievance cartel. Because he was accused of rape, they think it's a foregone conclusion that he's a rapist, acquittal be damned.

Cathy Young, for one, has stood up for Parker and decried the PC lynch mob that makes him a scapegoat.

So how does Parker himself react? Does he talk about the fact that it's unjust to assume guilt based on an accusation? Does he talk about the necessity for judging every case on its own facts? Does he talk about the critical importance of due process?

He does not. He reacts by admitting his male "privilege" and the destructive effect" that "male culture" has on our culture. He wants to "grow" from the rape criticisms being lodged against him. His interview is replete with the extremist language of "rape culture," which is both ironic and troubling because "rape culture" is the very attitude that says it's not just acceptable but, indeed, proper to assume he's a rapist based on the accusation made against him. "Rape culture" promotes the belief that to concede even the possibility that there might be another side to a "he said-she said" rape claim is misogyny and rape apology.

It doesn't matter to Mr. Parker that RAINN, itself, thinks "rape culture" is an unjust concept. "Rape is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions, of a small percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime," according to RAINN. The "unfortunate" tendency to blame "rape culture" for sexual assault, RAINN wrote, "has led to an inclination to focus on . . . traits that are common in many millions of law-abiding Americans (e.g., 'masculinity'), rather than on the subpopulation at fault: those who choose to commit rape."

Nate Parker has decided that he'd rather keep his PC credentials intact than speak out against the injustice of rushing to judgment and assuming guilt in rape cases, and that means kowtowing to the gender extremists who dominate the public discourse on all things related to sexual assault.

Because Nate Parker was a black man who was accused by a white woman, his attitude is particularly repulsive.

Nate Parker might have been wrongly accused, but he is no friend to the wrongly accused.

Excuse me? You mean innocent male students, who would never dream of sexually assaulting a woman, somehow have a duty to stop sexual assault because . . . they happen to be male?But wait until you read his rationale.“'Let’s be honest, a lot of guys know when something might happen, that they have an awareness that someone in their group is predisposed to do something,' Sen. Casey told the audience of about 60. 'You need to be a man. You need to examine your conscience and ask yourself what your obligation is...what you can do to prevent this from happening.'"

Yes, let’s be honest, Senator. You're full of shit.

The premise is ludicrous. If it is true that "a lot of guys know when something might happen," the same is true for "a lot of women."

How is it that when it comes to sexual assault, college men suddenly become The Amazing Kreskin--able to read the minds of predators, but college women--so capable is every other sphere of their existence--are completely clueless and thoroughly helpless?

The reason Casey puts the onus on innocent young men is because it is verboten to ask innocent young women to take any precautions to safeguard their own well-beings when it comes to sexual assault--it is verboten to suggest that they should alter their behavior even a whit to avoid being raped. They can drink to unconsciousness in the bedrooms of men they don't know, even if this increases the statistical likelihood that they will be raped, because to counsel that they exercise even a modicum of common sense is "victim blaming."

Since we can't tell innocent young women to "be careful" without being accused of being "rape apologists," we must put the onus to keep women safe on innocent young men--who have far less ability to prevent young women from being raped than the young women who might be raped.Get it? Neither do I.

Let's get it straight. We empower our college-aged daughters by insisting they are powerless. We make women "strong" by telling them they are Disney damsels who deserve to rescued by campus Prince Charmings who must "man up" to protect Senator Casey's daughters.

Down, down, down the rabbit hole we tumble.

Sen. Casey called sexual assault a “betrayal that plays out not solely because of the perpetrator because the rest of us don’t do something about it.”

But Senator, by "the rest of us," who do you mean, specifically? If innocent people have a responsibility to prevent rape, does that include even the potential victims?

Of course it does, but he'll never say it, folks. It would be the end of his political career.

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

I have been "ready" for a female president for as long as I can recall, but obviously the feminists aren't.

Gloria Steinem and Katie Couric dismissed the criticisms of Hillary Clinton as amounting to men being threatened by a powerful woman. You know, the usual. See here. Then Steinem pooh-poohed the Clinton email scandal (even though Clinton's previously hidden emails reveal that donors to the Clinton Foundation bought government access through their donations). Not surprisingly, Couric doesn't bother to challenge Steinem's assertions.

The comments come amidst a campaign where the male Republican nominee has been bombarded by unprecedented media hostility, not all of it self-inflicted.

Yet, any criticism of Mrs. Clinton is dismissed as sexism. Which means America isn't ready for a female president.

We can't be electing a president who is immune from criticism solely because of her genitalia. Legitimate criticism is legitimate criticism, not sexism, even though it's directed at a woman. A ten year old child knows that, but the people who dominate the political public discourse struggle with it.

Earlier in this campaign, Gloria Steinem said that young women were abandoning Hillary in favor of Bernie Sanders because--wait for it--young women want to follow the boys, and the boys were for Bernie. (I mean, with misogynists like that, who needs misogynists?)

We've previously shown that it's wholly unacceptable to talk about female candidates in gender terms but that female candidates do it all the time when it comes to their male opponents. The double-standard ought to be unacceptable, but of course it isn't.

When Senator Bernie Sanders called Hillary Clinton “unqualified” a few months ago, we were told he was speaking in "hidden codes" and launching a "gendered attack" on her by using a word that is a "subtle, pernicious form[ ] of sexism." It not only was unfair to Clinton's "impeccable resume," it served to do nothing less than "suppress women's political ambition." Women politicians, you see, are "more qualified" than male candidates based on their terms of political service, yet they face a constant struggle to prove their qualifications to others and themselves.

The charge is utter nonsense, of course. Numerous male Republican candidates have been attacked in this election cycle as unqualified and that's among the lesser charges. A lot of the attacks on male candidates have had gender undertones, but no one bothers to point that out. One (Ben Carson) was compared to a child molester--I don't see that happening to a female candidate; another (former Governor Jeb Bush) was continually branded as "low energy"; another (Marco Rubio) was ridiculed for sweating during a debate. One (Trump) was called a "draft dodger" for obtaining student deferrals during the Vietnam War. Is Hillary Clinton criticized for legally avoiding military service?

And while we're on the subject of her qualifications, is Clinton "qualified" to be president? Put aside the whole email scandal, the Benghazi lie, and the other-worldly fabrication about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, Clinton's "qualifications" for being president are based on the fact that she was married to a once-popular president, then served an undistinguished stint in the Senate, and then was arguably a failure as Secretary of State (can you say "Russian reset"? "Arab Spring"?). One of her most fervent supporters, Sen. Diane Feinstein, couldn't name a signature accomplishment of Clinton's while she was in the U.S. Senate. The State Department's own spokeswoman couldn't name one tangible achievement of Clinton's as Secretary of State. Clinton herself had difficulty mounting a coherent response to a question about her accomplishments.

Yet if we bring that up, we're misogynists.

Which means we aren't ready for a female president unless we stop heeding the gender zealots.

Thursday, July 28, 2016

Donald Trump told a female reporter who interrupted him more than once to "be quiet," so he's sexist.

When Trump called out ABC News reporter Tom Llamas and told him "you're a sleaze" at a press conference two months ago, was there a gender component to that?

Of course not. And there's no gender component to telling a woman who interrupts him to "be quiet." Give us a break.

I can promise you one thing: if the sexism angle of this story gets played up, Trump will publicly take on the people crying "sexism" in a very direct, in-your-face, way. He routinely fights back when he is challenged on things like this.

For a long time, I had tried to figure out the reason Donald Trump's popularity, and I think that's it--he's a billionaire street fighter. He's also ridiculous, exasperating, and very entertaining. But he won't allow the progressive news media to bully him. A typical example of that can be seen here,

When the name "Donald Trump" comes up in the conversation, a lot of people feel obliged to display some measure of visceral disgust--they roll their eyes and utter a disparaging remark or two. Young people actually believe what they're expressing, though they are almost universally ill-informed about the facts. Older people may or may not believe it, but they know they can't be a member of "the club" if they fail to react in this manner--they're afraid of what people might think of them if they fail to show disgust for Donald Trump. Sophisticated people don't support Trump, do they?

I find Donald Trump utterly fascinating--his speech patterns, his over-the-top confidence. Unlike a lot of people who have very strong, negative opinions about Trump, I don't get my information from the mainstream news media. I actually watch what he says. Very carefully. We are witnessing something so different, it is historic, and it will be talked about forever.

What's most fascinating about Trump is that virtually every one of his rallies are Nixon's so-called "last press conference" -- except much more in-your-face and much funnier. And therein lies the reason I think a lot of people supported Trump--the GOP nominee is traditionally attacked by the mainstream media. He is put on the defensive, painted as standing in the way of "progress," and hurting the downtrodden. The GOP nominee traditionally has been feckless at fighting back. Think Joe Biden smirking at Paul Ryan throughout the 2012 VP debate. Mr. Ryan was too well-mannered, perhaps too callow, to call him on it. Think Obama rolling his eyes at gentleman Mitt Romney, and CNN's Candy Crowley taking Obama's side on a fact issue during a debate. Does anyone seriously think Trump would lay down for that sort of thing? Think about snarky Lloyd Bentsen telling hapless Dan Quayle, "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." Quayle was humiliated. On and on it goes--not since Reagan in 1980 has a GOP candidate scored a knockout in a Presidential debate. (The exception: Romney bested Obama in the first debate in 2012, only to roll over and "play it safe" after that--Trump doesn't know how to "play it safe.")

Trump's supporters feel they have a candidate who will not be bullied, and they are right. Now, that says nothing about substance. Personally, I have serious misgivings about a lot of what Trump stands for, and a lot of people are legitimately concerned about him (e.g., The National Review devoted an entire issue to stopping him)--but not for the reasons most of the eye-rollers are. Donald Trump is the GOP nominee, yet he doesn't espouse conservative principles. He is not concerned about reducing the size or influence of the Federal government. Due process isn't on his radar. His stance on the issue that is by far the most important to him--trade--is arguably closer to Bernie Sanders' position than that of conservatives and if taken to its logical, Bernie-extreme, could lead to '70s-era inflation (President Obama has warned about that).

If you are a conservative, you are stuck voting for Trump because he has told us who he will appoint to the Supreme Court, and they are conservative jurists: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/18/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominees/ That's not a promise Trump is likely to go back on, at least in his first term. For that same reason, regardless of what you think about Hillary Clinton, if you are not a conservative, you will vote for her.

Friday, July 22, 2016

This is not a defense of Donald Trump. This is not a post to suggest that Donald made a great acceptance speech last night or a poor one. I am not interested in that here.

This is about the double-standard of the people who dominate the public discourse about politics.

After Trump's speech, news outlet after news outlet ripped Trump's speech as "dark" and criticized his vision of America as "fearful."

The people bemoaning Trump's speech include the gender extremists who dominate the public discourse on sexual assault. Take Salon, for instance. It has a headline that reads as follows: "Trump’s terrifying speech: Fear and xenophobia become the GOP’s official platform. The dark, fearful vision laid out by the Republican presidential nominee represents a nadir for our politics."

The irony is that Salon is perhaps the greatest purveyor of rape hysteria in America. Examples: here, here, here, here, here, here and here. And that's just a few I grabbed in a few seconds--we could fill this blog with dark Salon pieces on rape that vilify men, especially college men.

These people own "dark." They invented it. And the "dark" they peddle is a confection of lies and even bigger lies. Donald Trump is a combination of Pollyanna and Mother Teresa compared to these banshees.

The people wringing their hands because Donald Trump is too "dark" unflinchingly demonize college men and reduce them to vile caricature, insist that college campuses are rape pits, claim with a straight face that women don't lie about rape, and preach that due process for men accused of rape on campus is a luxury college women can't afford. They buy into an untruth that even RAINN, the preeminent anti-rape organization in America, denounced: the "rape culture" meme.

They happily fear-monger and spread hysteria for no reason other than to elevate one gender and to diminish another.

They bought into the Duke lacrosse false rape case, Rolling Stone's imaginary gang rape, Mattress Girl's dubious rape, the Hofstra false rape case, and too many others to chronicle. Spend a few months reading through the back stories of this blog and you'll see.

Yet, these same people would have you believe that Donald Trump's vision is "dark."

Why? Because Trump isn't preaching the right kind of "dark." He doesn't blame white college men for all of America's problems.

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Sometimes, we need to take sides. Sometimes the choices are easy--the GOP has written a platform that ought to be applauded by people concerned about the rights of the presumptively innocent.

For more than five years, the current administration has manifested an unprecedented hostility to due process when it comes to college students (almost always males) accused of sexual assault. This blog has published literally hundreds of posts on this hostility, and there is no need to summarize it for our readers. People who suggest that the previous administration was "just as bad" are simply wrong, and that position is part of the problem.

The presumptive Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Clinton, has signaled that she will take this hostility to another level. She believes that the sex act is presumptively rape whenever an accusation is made and that it is up to the accused to prove it wasn't. See here. Anyone who doesn't appreciate the gravity of Mrs. Clinton's positions is unschooled on the issues--she is espousing a position long-advocated by radical feminist extremists.

Too many of the once-heroic champions of due process in the Democratic Party have lately opted to worship at the altar of group identity politics instead, and they happily support the erosion of due process when it comes to one gender, and one crime.

When was the last time a liberal openly cheered rolling back due process protections? They do it now all the time when it comes to college men and sex accusations. The principal exceptions seem to be law professors who appreciate that due process is the greatest bulwark against tyranny and injustice ever devised by man. In the political realm, the protectors of due process are now the libertarians and Constitutional conservatives with libertarian leanings like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio. Sen. Rubio expressly supported ending the the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights’s "assault against due process rights" when it comes to college men accused of sexual assault.

Now the GOP platform has addressed the issue, and its words are unmistakable. Rape is a crime, and it needs to be proved in court beyond a reasonable doubt, not by misapplying the Title IX preponderance of the evidence standard (and, yes, they misapply the standard--see here).

Sexual assault is a terrible crime. We commend the good-faith efforts by law enforcement, educational institutions, and their partners to address that crime responsibly. Whenever reported, it must be promptly investigated by civil authorities and prosecuted in a courtroom, not a faculty lounge. Questions of guilt or innocence must be decided by a judge and jury, with guilt determined beyond a reasonable doubt. Those convicted of sexual assault should be punished to the full extent of the law. The Administration’s distortion of Title IX to micromanage the way colleges and universities deal with allegations of abuse contravenes our country’s legal traditions and must be halted before it further muddles this complex issue and prevents the proper authorities from investigating and prosecuting sexual assault effectively with due process.

Like it or not, it is the GOP, not the Democratic Party, that seeks to protect our sons from the politically correct witch hunt against them on our college campuses. This is not a position that the law and order GOP of Bob Dole and others of his ilk would have taken 20 years ago--we ought to applaud the GOP for coming to this position. But for many of us who have spent decades of our lives as Democrats, it is a bitter pill to swallow--this is not the party of John F. Kennedy or even Bill Clinton. This is something qualitatively different, and it is out to punish an entire gender by making it far too easy to punish the presumptively innocent for offenses they didn't commit. They have lost me, folks.

Friday, July 15, 2016

The sexual grievance industry--and if you want to see who is part of it, see this letter--constantly defends the illegal mandate of the Dept. of Education's Office for Civil Rights that colleges and universities use the "preponderance of the evidence" standard (but only for sex charges). This standard means that a school must find guilt if the evidence is even 50.001% tilted in favor of the accuser's story.

The goal is very simple: they want to make it easier to expel and suspend more young men for sexual assault because they believe that there is a college rape epidemic even though the belief is ludicrous.

This argument is laughable to anyone who practices civil law, and it is astounding to me that news outlets parrot their argument as if it has legitimacy.

In civil cases, the defendant is afforded all manner of evidentiary protections that colleges routinely deny young men accused of sex offenses. If the Dept. of Education would mandate that colleges adopt the evidentiary protections mandated for defendants in civil trials, I'd be fine with it. But the procedures utilized in college kangaroo sex tribunals cannot be compared to the procedures used civil courts where, generally, only money damages are sought and the preponderance of the evidence standard is employed.

In civil cases, defendants are allowed to be fully represented by counsel at every stage of the proceeding. Their counsel are permitted to make arguments for them and to vigorously depose prior to trial, and to vigorously cross-examine during trial, the accuser and any other pertinent witnesses. In college sex tribunals, counsel for the accused can rarely do more than sit there, if that.

Aside from depositions, defendants in civil litigation are also permitted to engage in all manner of discovery, including proffering requests for admissions, requests for production of documents, and interrogatories. And if the plaintiff fails to respond to proper discovery requests, she is sanctioned by the court, up to and including dismissal of her case and requiring her to pay the other side's attorney's fees.Nothing remotely similar is allowed in most college sex proceedings .

Hearsay evidence generally is excluded, as is evidence whose probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect to a party. In college sex proceedings, the adjudicators do not have a clue what constitutes hearsay, much less how to assess whether evidence is too prejudicial to consider.

Trial and appellate judges are lawyers bound by centuries of common law precedent. In college sex proceedings, there are no constraints in the decision-making.

The college kangaroo sex proceeding has no relation to the orderly administration of justice in civil court--none.

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

I have come to the conclusion that colleges--both the people who run them and work there, and the people who pay to attend them--don't know, and don't care, what due process is. At least when it comes to sexual assault claims lodged against male students. For those who care, here's the essence of it:

Although due process tolerates variances in procedure "appropriate to the nature of the case," it is nonetheless possible to identify its core goals and requirements. First, "[p]rocedural due process rules are meant to protect persons not from the deprivation, but from the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property." Thus, the required elements of due process are those that "minimize substantively unfair or mistaken deprivations" by enabling persons to contest the basis upon which a State proposes to deprive them of protected interests. The core of these requirements is notice and a hearing before an impartial tribunal. Due process may also require an opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination, and for discovery; that a decision be made based on the record, and that a party be allowed to be represented by counsel.

A student has sued Cornell claiming "the university 'presupposed his guilt' by conducting the investigation without a hearing, and claiming that investigators spoke to him 'in an accusatory and intimidating manner.'"

This is the same Danielle Paquette who accepts, without challenge, the debunked statistic that one-in-five college women are raped--even though every single survey that repeats this lie is based on self-reporting. (And, even though every one of those surveys was designed by people with a financial interest in the college rape "epidemic" and the questions are weighted to "prove" the existence of such an epidemic.) In one article Danielle Paquette wrote: "Nearly one in five women in the United States have been sexually assaulted . . . ." In another, she wrote: "One in five college women will be sexually assaulted before graduation."

Here's the dirty little secret Danielle Paquette never mentions: every time--every single time--sexual assault claims are actually tested by examining the evidence (in other words, every time we bother to hear what the accused has to say), the majority of such claims can't be said to be sexual assault. That's a fact.

Put aside the lying, a significant percentage of college women--approaching half--admit they confuse consensual acts with rape. A Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation survey shows that 44% of college women--that's approaching half--think that when a woman gives a guy a "nod in agreement," that isn't enough for consent.

And here's the really bad part: the sexual grievance industry has used the lies in sexual assault surveys to take away the due process rights of college men. That, of course, is totally lost on Danielle Paquette.